C150 questions

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm looking (work / research, not pleasure flying) into aspects of the C150 and C152. The C152 is readily available, and I know the aeroplane well myself anyway, but could I ask if those who fly C150s (only C150s) could tell me....

(1) Who, if anybody, in England still has one or more C150 for hire?

(2) For the model you fly (please say) how the flap lever mechanises, and where the flap position indicator is.

(3) How you fly (or for instructors teach, or for students are being taught) the approach and go-around with respect to flap use/monitoring, speeds, etc. Please note, whilst I'm guessing that I've probably just triggered a discussion on best practice (and why not!), what I really want to know is what people actually do.

Please forgive me for not explaining why I'm after this information, if you'll forgive my vagueness, I'd like to explain that later.

G

[brisl]

You have PM.

[rogerbucks]

I am a member of a group who operate a C150 (1976 vintage). The flap lever, when selected 'down' from neutral is a 'momentary' switch operating the electric motor, and when selected 'up', stays in the 'up' position until re-positioned either to neutral or 'down'. The flap position indicator is on the inside left windscreen pillar (a little inconvenient when trying to keep your eye on the ASI, and is marked at 10,20.30 & 40 degrees. There is no detent on the switch, so you can select any position down, to 40.
I tend to fly the approach at 20 degrees, 30 for short field. When I learned to fly on the 150, we were discouraged from using 40 degrees, as the aircraft will not climb at this setting, and needs full power just to maintain altitude; (some more 'tired' models would not even do this!). Also, when retracting the flaps (say in a go-around), you can be caught out by selecting up, and then having the flaps retract fully unless you re-select neutral at the appropriate stage.
I think a few clubs may still operate the 150, although most now use the 152.
RB

[Canuck Spin]

Hi Genghis,

Firecrest Aviation at Elstree (closest airfield to your location if looking for near London) offer the Cessna 150 for hire...around £75 an hour inc.

However, I don't fly there or the C150 so not sure on the variant or layout of the cockpit etc.

Hope that helps!
CS

[rtl_flyer]

Genghis,

Sold my C150 last month. This is how I operated the flaps.

I could keep my hand on the throttle and operate the flap - down - switch with thumb or finger. I prefered this far more than the C152 as the gate was often worn so you had to hold the switch and move to position. Otherwise it flew past what you wanted to set.
Never had a problem with flap position. Switch down - ONE, TWO seconds - release you had 10 degrees at a time.
As for the the position of the flap indicator. It was next to where you are looking (door pilar) when you are on approach - out the window. A quick glance, thats all you need. You can still look out/keep your approach picture. Looking down to the lower part of a C152 panel is far more of a distraction.
I agree 40% flap is hard work on a go around. I have done it and my Cessna would climb. It was the larger engined FRA150 with a O-240 (130hp). I generally used 30% unless I needed 40%. Go around retraction again I used - ONE, TWO and flicked the switch back.

It's like any aircraft. Difference does not make them unsafe you just need to know what the difference is compared to what you have flown before. Not to say what you were trained on was any better/safer.

Tim

[Rod1]

Sherbun have one for hire.

Rod1

[nadders]

Phoenix flying school at Netherthorpe has 4 yes 4 C-150 Aerobats for hire. £75/hour. Aircraft in excellent fettle, all maintained on site, believe all are IMC equipped and have sat nav.

Nadders

[modelman]

I fly C150/C152 but mainly the latter.

Landing C150 on base carb heat,back to 1700rpm,into white arc,20 deg flap,trim for 65kts. On final 30 deg flap (stay with 20 deg/65kts for significant xwind,)60-65kts,over threshold,ease back to idle (not slam shut),flare as usual,hopefully with a slight sqeak of stall warner.
Use the indicator in the 'A' pillar for flap position.tried the counting method but not 150 flaps move a the same rate.

Only have ever used 40 deg on PFL's.

Go around,full throttle, (not slammed),carb cold,quickly back to 20 deg,lock my arm to resist the pitch up.When accelerating/climbing,flaps away at 10 deg steps.

Flap actuator switch to the side of mixture,prefer it to the 'gate' type of 152.

Hope this helps
MM

[Mark 1]

I learnt on them and now teach on them at a club with two C150s.

I used to fly one with manual flaps. I liked them , but getting 40 degrees down was difficult above about 70 mph, but it handled nicely down to 55mph for a precautionary type landing. They have no flap position indicator other than the lever position, counting the notches or looking out of the window.

The "newer" ones have a switch that is spring loaded between down and off, but will remain in the 'up' position, and can easily be knocked into 'up' after lowering flaps. Most students do it some time and are initially confused that their approach speeds suddenly rise to 90-100mph. Their is a flap indication on the LH wing root.

We teach 20 degrees of flaps on base leg and 30 on final, speed stabilised at about 70 mph aiming for 65 over the hedge and 60 for a full flap precautionary approach or performance landing.

Go around is:
Carb air cold and full power.
Arrest the descent
Raise flaps to 20 degrees (from 30 or 40)
Put the landing area on your LH side,
climb away if speed >60 and after take-off checks as normal departure.

[Whirlybird]

I had a share in a C150 for several years, up until a little over a year ago. The flap position indicator was somewhere above my left shoulder, which is horribly inconvenient, so once I got used to it, I used to pretty much estimate the flap position by looking at the flaps themselves until I had time for a quick glance at the indicator. This was easier, and after all, does the difference between 27 and 30 degrees really matter?

So...downwind checks, check carb heat and leave it on. Turn base, reduce speed to 70 on the outer scale of the ASI (ie mph) and select around 20 degrees of flap. When on final, select around 30 degrees of flap...or sometimes I left it at 20. Slow to 65mph over the threshold. Leave carb heat out till after landing...nearly had engine failure on short final once after pushing it in!

I used 40 degrees of flap once just to see what it felt like, and to make sure I could. It was...interesting.

I did a PFL once varying the flaps as I went, ie using them a bit like air brakes, again, to see what it was like. Seemed to work pretty well.

A go-around is OK if you decide early. But for a late go-around or touch-and-go you have to put in the carb heat and hold the flap lever up and push in the throttle...and you tend to run out of hands, unless you have a convenient co-pilot to help. It was never a real problem, but slightly awkward.

That's about all I can think of.

[flugholm]

Slightly out of the scope of your question, but nevertheless:
The flight school where I usually rent is Berlin Tempelhof Aviators, based at -- you guessed it -- Berlin Tempelhof. They have a very nice C150, built in 1962. I haven't flown it yet, so I can't comment on this flap thingie.

[BeechNut]

I think a 1952 would have manual flaps with a johnson bar. Really the best set-up, actually. Had it in my PA28 and now in my Beech C23.

[24Right]

I trained at Netherthorpe with Phoenix (very cheap and highly recommended, BTW) who then had four C150s (now, as mentioned above, they use aerobats).

Netherthorpe has two runways: one is very short and the other :mad:short, so we were taught 40 deg on final, which got us in with runway to spare. Sometimes caught out the 152 jockeys who were used to full flap being 30 deg, as it flies like a piano with 40 deg flap. On gusty/cross-wind days we often used 30 deg flap to land.

On go around 40 deg wasn't a problem (so long as you weren't too slow on final and flew the book figures) - carb heat off, full throttle, flaps raised to 30 and then 20, watching for sink and, if all was well to 10 and fully up after about 500 feet. This latter part was fairly instinctive to Netherthorpe pilots as the short field meant all takeoffs were with 20 deg flap, so we were used to dealing with flap retraction shortly after take off.

I think the change to aerobats came largely because of those fairly regular buttock clenching moments when on a hot day, with an uphill grass (sometimes wet and longish) runway two up, the hedge seemed uncomfortably close:eek: an additional 20 hp (I think) in the aerobat really helps, although the cruise speed isn't much increased over the vanilla 150 and it uses a bit more fuel.

Flap monitor position varied. In most it was on the left door pillar, but one model had it on the panel, next to the flap switch. Switch varied too. On some it was a hold for down and watch the monitor (or the flaps when, as often happened the monitor didn't work) and a switch and hold up (for partial retraction) or leave up (for full retraction) and centre neutral. In others it had detents for 10, 20, 30 and full flap, which was much easier to use.

All in all a great little plane.:)

24R

[Rod1]

Can we get to the "I'd like to explain that later" bit now?

Rod1

[jabberwok]

Similar experience to 24R so I won't repeat.

In the early 1970's full flaps were standard for approach, it was only in later years this was discouraged. One word of warning though - we were told NEVER to sideslip with full flap. Is this still in the handbook?

[Pilot DAR]

Hello Genghis

I appreciate your efforts for other PPruner’s in the past, and am happy to help you however I can.
Here are some thoughts cut from my previous writings, and some additional observations relating to your inquiry, I hope they assist you….

Next week will be the 20th year I have owned my 1975 C-150M. During this time, I have accumulated more than 2500 very trouble free hours on it. It was Horton STOL kitted when I bought it, and that was a major factor in my choosing it. I owned a 1976 C-150M prior for a short while.

In order that my comments may fall into context for you, I have an additional several thousand hours in nearly all of the other single Cessna models, excluding the 120, 188, 195 and P210. This experience is on wheels, skis, floats and amphibian floats where the type is approved on alternative configurations. I have also extensively evaluated other STOL kit installations. I offer this because comments to come will surely cause trauma, and doubt of my credibility, with some PPruners. Perhaps they will open their minds a little….

All of the following is written with respect to the Horton STOL C150M with the O-200A engine, and a 69-48 prop, unless I indicate otherwise.

I have gone to great effort to evaluate exactly what flap setting is most useful for each stage of flight in the 150. As a result of this effort, I have established my operating technique with respect to flaps. It is: 15 degrees of flap at all times while the aircraft is in motion on the ground, and during takeoff, slowly retracting to zero when obstacles cleared and 65 plus MPH. In the latter portion of the landing circuit, 20 degrees, with selection to 40 degrees when the landing is established. I do not ever use landing flap settings of less than 40 degrees, unless it is for the occasional practice for the possibility of flap motor failure.

I have never landed in crosswinds so high that I felt that a flap setting of less than 40 degrees would be any easier to control. 18 knot crosswinds are a challenge as usual, but not a problem.

My takeoffs are conducted with rotation initiated at 45 MPH indicated, and allowing acceleration to 55 MPH once clear of the ground. If heavy on a hot yucky day, I’ll let it get to 50-55 MPH before rotation. Climb out at 65 MPH. Approach is 70-65 MPH, with an over the fence speed from 60 to 50 MPH, usually carrying some power, depending on the steadiness of the wind. I have installed an airspeed indicator from a Bell 206 helicopter, which indicates down to 20 MPH. The Cessna original indicator spent too much time floating uselessly between 40 and zero during very slow flight. With 40 degrees of flap and full power, my C150 will safely fly at 23 MPH indicated for extended periods. Slight climb, and 30 degree turns are safely possible in this configuration. I avoid this type of flying on hot days to keep the CHT down though. I do have a CHT indicator to be sure. I agree that there is probably some pitot tube position error in this value, so I am not asserting it. Landing at such slow speeds is not possible though, as the tail is flying lower than the main wheels at that speed. A tail strike is assured if such a low speed, high power landing is attempted in a STOL single Cessna.

Side slipping with 40 degrees of flap in a 150 is no problem, and entirely safe. The other week I demonstrated a full flap, full rudder deflection, 180 degree turning glide approach, with the return to co-ordinated flight just before the flare. I was fulfilling the specific request of another PPrune member, who seemed to quite enjoy the experience. If you wish, I will ask her to contact you, to provide her observations directly to you. The cautions about slipping Cessnas with flaps extended is a reference to some 172’s. I’ve do it many times and they are quite safe. In a slip, there is a bit of turbulent flow over the H stab between 65 and 55 MPH, which gives a non-reassuring softness to the controls in pitch. This is very similar to what happens to a 172 at these speeds with one door removed.

A comment about gliding STOL Cessnas: though possible, they are not to glided at speeds slower than the flight manual suggests. The plane will fly safely in the glide 10 MPH slower, but come time to flare, there will be no reserve inertia, and a very hard landing is assured.

I have found during soft ground operations in single tricycle Cessnas that the selection of 10 to 15 degrees provides much improved elevator authority. This can be vital for keeping the nose wheel either completely off the ground while taxiing, or at least light. It makes a big difference for the propeller life (particularly in gravel), and nose wheel strut life between rebuild.

An overshoot with 40 degrees of flap, with subsequent climb out, is not spectacular, but can be safely accomplished. I have done it at night with a failed electrical system, and completed a circuit and landing. It is certainly my preference to retract the flaps from 40 to 20 while overflying the runway in ground affect if that is possible safely. But, if you have to climb out, you can. A speed of 60 to 70 MPH during this phase would be great, but sometimes it’s hard to get that much speed. I prefer to keep the altitude to less, and the airspeed increasing, rather than the other way around during an overshoot. I’m happy to go from 40 to 20 flap in one selection, but a pause at 20 is pretty important to let a bit of speed build up. Another pause at 10 is a good idea.

The flap position indicator in my 150 is on the left door post. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement over the earlier versions, which was right above the pilot's head (good for instructors to see though). I have devised a very presentable decal which is applied to the inside of the left wing rib aft area, which becomes exposed when the flap is extended. This simply makes 10 degree increment lines become visible as the flap extends. When you're flying left hand circuits, you spend some time looking right out in that direction anyway, so a quick glance, and your flap setting is confirmed. Should anyone wish a CorelDraw file of this decal, PM me and I'll be pleased to sent it along via email. It's installation would not require modification approval by Canadian standards.

I agree that the Later Cessna flap preselect switch of the later 150's and all 152's is pleasing to use, but they can be more demanding of maintenance though. When they go wrong, they go way wrong! I’ve had runaways. With non-pull type breakers, you cannot stop them in transit.

The original C150 flap switch is the subject of a service bulletin, which suggests its replacement with a spring to center from both position type. This is not mandatory though, and I have preferred to leave mine original. You just have to pay attention a little during retraction. You can select the flaps up and they go 40 to zero in one motion before you realize. That’s not safe in a 150, close to the ground.

The subject of the ergonomics of the flap indicator and switch of the C-150 are addressed in an article by Dr. Harold Dale, in Volume Two, Issue No.1 of the International Journal of Aviation Safety. This might be of interest to you.

I am not of the opinion that flap asymmetry in a single Cessna is a risk of any concern. If it were to happen during extension from flaps up, retracting the flaps would fix the problem. If one flap suddenly retracted from full flaps - forget it, you'd be done, unless you had lot's of altitude, and manual flaps. I’ve never heard of this happening.

A greater risk, and is has happened to me in a Cessna 180 floatplane, is a flap track breaking off. During water touch and go's (way farther from shore than I should have been) I quickly retracted from 40 to 20 while on the step, and took off again. The flap handle felt a little funny. Once airborne, I could not move the right flap at all, and the left had become a very unsafe aileron. I flew home with 20 flap out, and landed with that setting, and great care. Once on the water, the right flap hung down inboard at an odd angle. It's track had come completely out of the wing!

So, after that long, and potentially controversial text, I hope that it has been of some assistance to your research. It’s what I actually do, and know. When the time is right, I’ll be very eager to understand what you’re working on. In the mean time, feel free the PM me if more information would be helpful.

Cheers,

Pilot DAR

[smarthawke]

We once had a top outboard bearing fail on a C172N.

This was on the right hand flap during a demonstration to a student by an instructor of flap operation. The motor kept retracting till it broke the flap spar. Result was outboard section of the flap was half extended, the inboard half retracted as was the (cable operated) port flap. The aircraft was just controllable - how it would have been if the flaps were extended during the turn on to final, who knows...

I sent in an MOR but the CAA said that was only the 3rd occurrence so wasn't aproblem. I suggested that the rollers were removed every 3 years to be properly cleaned, inspected and relubed - they are needle roller bearings. Smearing grease on flap tracks does nuffin'!

At the paint shop, we often find Cessna flap rollers in a shocking state when the flaps are removed and have to be replaced.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ladies and gents, thank you very much (and particularly Pilot DAR for the journal reference, which I'd not come across - but certainly will be tracking down PDQ).

I'm helping out an organisation called GASCo, which will be familiar to most UK pilots, but for those outside the UK, is a joint industry/association/CAA managed body whose objective is promoting GA safety in the UK. GASCo has been doing (and is still doing) an analysis of UK GA fatal accidents since 1980, looking for any trends.

Whilst the UK accident rate is pretty damned good, and consistently improving over that time, there are nonetheless a few interesting trends to this. One, which surprised nobody is that the majority of GA fatals involve a stall or spin in there somewhere. Another, which did surprise us was a factor 16 difference between the C150 and C152 - per flying hour the C150 is 16 times more likely to suffer a stall/spin related fatal accident. (Please nobody take a message from this that the C150 is unsafe, it isn't - but this is nonetheless a marked difference). Pretty much all of the accidents result from a loss of control in low level manoeuvring somewhere.

So, I've undertaken to try and answer the simple question - "why?". This will take a while, and I'm fairly well set up to do this, but one of things I really want to get a handle on, so that I can construct my assessment of the differences between the two types, is how people operate the C150 for real - not by the manual, not necessarily the opinions of a very experienced and safe pilot like PilotDAR (although as a baseline of how it can be done, that post is nonetheless extremely useful!), but what is really done.

It'll probably be 2008 before (the results from) what I'm up to is openly publishable, so in the meantime, thanks folks for your help, and any further views - particularly on how the C150 actually is operated are very much welcomed. (Incidentally there are other trends, which will get published in good time, that I or others - Irv is very involved also, and the whole effort is being run by MikeJ are/will look into).

Why are we doing this? Well pure curiosity is in there somewhere, but the hope is that we can learn lessons from the differences between these two, quite similar, aeroplanes that can be fed into both flying training and aeroplane design towards minimising future fatal departures from controlled flight - something that we'd all like to see.

G

[J.A.F.O.]

PM on the way.

[Final 3 Greens]

Ghengis

No doubt you have eliminated this factor already, but having flown both the 150 and the 152, the former always seemed to be more prone to carb ice than the latter.

As reduced or no power could be a contributory factor impacting stall/spin accidents, thought it was worth mentioning as a sanity check.

[rtl_flyer]

Why are we doing this? Well pure curiosity is in there somewhere, but the hope is that we can learn lessons from the differences between these two, quite similar, aeroplanes that can be fed into both flying training and aeroplane design towards minimising future fatal departures from controlled flight - something that we'd all like to see.
You appear to be concentrating on the aircraft. What about the pilots? As a high number of 152's are used for training they will usually have a more experienced pilot who is very current and has performed - recently - many landings etc.
150's are not often used for training nowdays. Potentially it's a low hour private owner, not doing circuits daily.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Gents,

Points all noted and appreciated. I am concentrating upon the aircraft, but there are some very experienced FIs who will be looking at my results and considering how they apply to the pilot issue.

I've had that with C150 carb heat also, but don't think it's a major player - but I'm continuing to look at all avenues. It's not a simple problem, and gets more complex every time I go further into it!

All and any further thoughts always appreciated.

G

[Pilot DAR]

Genghis,

RTL Flyer makes the point, which I would also make in respect of your inquiry. If the UK is anything like Canada, C-150’s seem to end up as the uncared for, and abused time builder – flown by newer pilots, and most importantly, without supervision or good nearby influence. At the very least, they are not respected for their own importance as an aeroplane.

For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.

To draw an appropriate comparison, consider the well regarded C-182. It is renown as having the best safety record of the single GA fleet. Is that because it is a safer aeroplane than the C-172? No, they have extremely similar flying qualities, the only thing the 182 has over the 172 would be that if both aeroplanes are flown solo, the 182 has lots more reserve power with which to get out of trouble. If they are both loaded to gross weight, they are closer to each other in performance.

So why are 182’s safer? It’s who is flying them and how. 182’s are just too expensive to treat like junk. They are hard to rent, and owners take much more care in who flies their pride and joy. Judge by appearance alone; it’s pretty common to see a really tired looking C-150. Not so much for any of the other higher number Cessna’s. When you get to 182, 206, 210, they are nearly all pretty good looking. It costs about the same to repaint and refurnish a 150 as any of the others. The others hold a higher value, so people take better care of them, the 150’s are ignored. This holds true about the way they are flown as well.

I suggest that your research is only looking at part of the problem, and indeed the less influential part, if you are not concentrating also on the experience and attitude of the pilots, and the appearance (which will equal the attitude toward, and care taken of, the aeroplane).

Simple check: The accident aircraft you are studying, do you have photos of either the fuselage side (by which to evaluate the condition of the paint job) or interior to evaluate it’s condition? This will give a real insight into how the plane was treated. Well cared for will often equal well flown.

I’m certainly not accusing you of casting a poor light on C-150’s, it’s the careless pilots doing that. But this is not much of a “by type” problem to be found, it’s a “by attitude toward type” problem.

Cheers, Pilot DAR

[BeechNut]

For some reason, C-152’s seem to hold a value a few rungs farther up the ladder, and are much more likely to be found in a more professional flight training environment. Much less unsupervised careless flying.

I suspect it has everything to do with the engine. The C152's engine has a 2400 hour TBO, the C150, 1800. That's an additional 600 hours flying. For a private pilot doing the average 50 or so hours a year, that's significant. For a flight school, it adds a couple of years between overhauls; so all things being equal, including engine times, the 152 will have a lot longer to go between overhauls.

Other factors that might relate to the accident rate. First, there are simply fewer 152s than 150s. Secondly, the lower value of the C150 means they are the most affordable aircraft out there, and many newly minted PPLs choose the 150 as their first aircraft (I know I did, back in 1982...and I miss the d-mned thing...not sexy, but cheap and fun to fly). I'm in Canada too...a good 150 with a few hundred hours remaining to TBO will fetch about $25-30,000 CDN. A similar 152 will cost around $40k. That's getting close to Piper Cherokee territory and frankly for most people a good PA28-140 will be a more capable aircraft than a C152 except for short-field performance.

And being newer, the professional flight schools will, as you note, prefer them to a 150; the smaller mom-and-pop shop type flight schools tend to go for the 150 as they are cheaper.

I don't think there's anything inherently unsafe about the 150. As a small two-seat trainer/personal aircraft, for a low-time pilot, it is probably much safer than, say, a Grumman AA1 or Traumahawk...